whether you say $40 million or $10 million or whatever number you put the number is going to go down very rapidly. and we've already understood that in the last round when we went through pier 38. so i don't worry we are going to have too many. i think that we worried last time that we would have too few and we ended up with just two. the process was a little different than what you are proposing. and i'm fine with empowering the panel, because i think we want a fully objective process here and not subjective. and i think that if we can put in the rfp what we really do require after you go through minimum qualifications. but i would say beyond just saying i'm qualified to do this and i can raise some money, i think they should also put in their concept how they see the financial feasibility so we don't get into some of the come peeing projects -- compelling projects that will never see the light of day because

they won't pencil out. that's something we can do in the preliminary phase. i think this rfp is very different from the last one because the last one was only the bulkhead. this one is for the entire pier. and obviously the costs are very different today than what we looked at in 2012. so that's going to also put a different sort of qualifier on here as well. so i just think that -- i think commissioner brandon probably has the most experience in dealing with complex rfps because she's been on the commission the longest and seen what's been successful and not. but in my process, i think the scoring criteria is fine, and i think the waiting is appropriate, and the oral, i think the oral to me is not just being able to articulate well, it's also a question of developing i guess the intangible factor the trust factor, the factors of how we are going to work with this developer

that are intangible that come through in terms of the oral interview that perhaps somebody can talk well but do we trust they are going to do the execution. some of that is developed not on paper but an interview process and that's an intangible that's going to reflect how the panel goes about their job. and i don't know that you can necessarily put that all in writing per se, but that is a very important factor, because we all know how we develop certain chemistry or not develop chemistry with certain players in terms of how we do business. and that is just a fact of life. so that would be my comment so far. and i think commissioner brandon can probably add more of her history of dealing with complex rfps. and not just particularly because of these two piers which we do have experience with, which have been very painful. we thought pier 38 was going to be developed when it was closed in 2012 by 2014. that never happened. and we are now

five years later still starting at the starting gate again. >> thank you. any other comments? questions? thank you so much for this report. i think that each time we have a large development we try -- we sometimes we try the same way sometimes we try a new way because it doesn't always work. i think with this project, we were empowering a panel because we need a lot of expertise to go into whomever submits whatever proposal. i did feel that somewhere between that one recommendation coming to us that we should be able to see the proposal. where we see it, how it all fits in, where we don't influence or hurt the panel's decision, i'm

open. so i mean the panel can do their work and then they come and present to us. but i don't think it's going to be more than two three four max. so i don't think we are talking about a large group. but i did want us to have the opportunity to see who presented because this is a large project. and then -- so if the panel does all their work before the presentations come to us, i'm not quite sure if we should have, you know, the written and oral at 100 percent or if we need that extra 30 percent. because i've seen many contracts where people have done phenomenal in their written but the oral is even better and it knocks them into first place. so i'm not quite sure the scoring

-- i would never -- i've never seen 130 percent. i've always seen 100 percent. i'm just not sure about that. >> the 130 points? >> yeah, the 130 points. >> i wanted to make some comments back based on what you've all said. i think we should revisit the five minutes. i think it's probably too small. i agree with commissioner makras' point and we should rethink that especially if we have three to four respondents. so i don't know what the right figure would be, maybe 15 minutes or ten minutes, something like that. >> open-ended. >> we don't have to specify how long the presentations will be. we can clarify that when the responses come in and make some good strategic decisions about what makes sense. i absolutely think the blackout period should extend to the panelists. that's a very, good catch. in terms of the timing. the reason we wanted every response that met the

minimum qualifications to come through to you so you can see them before the panel comes together and it's like awe a justice justice, you could have that experience, the public could see it and then the panel gets to work. we like that flow because the panel can get to work and come back to you and tell you what i found. so i think that is the preferred timing. yes. >> we have one caveat on that. maybe it's covered in the blackout period. i would not want the panel to hear, because we might have remarks. i don't want them to be influenced by us. >> we decided they wouldn't be influenced by you. so they are not coming to the hearing and we are going to tell them not to listen and pay attention. because we are telling them exactly what to pay attention to based on your criteria. that's right. >> i think it should be very explicit in a signed agreement that they don't watch

the commissioners listen. because that's my concern where that could happen within the community, if there was overwhelming talk that people come out with public comment in support of it and they end up scoring poorly, that was what i was trying to drive at. >> or the papers could pick up. lots of things that could happen. there could be free contests of community members. >> so should we skip the presentation to the commission? >> i think -- i mean i think the scoring should happen first maybe. i'm really concerned about public relations. because we already had projects come to us in here where you already got past all the stage and we were just giving them the final kind of blessing to move forward. how much public

comment do we have with supporters coming out for that? anyone worth their salt is going to organize the community at this presentation to come up for public comment, and i don't want this to be a popularity contest with something that's so important. >> what you could do is they present but no public comment. >> i don't think we can do that, commissioner. [laughter] we've tried but i think with the browne act there's always an opportunity for public comment. so we would have a hard public comment. >> if it was left to me, i would have the panel do their job before then and then bring it forward so we can see it. we give them 15, 20 minutes to present. the real world of this is we are most likely not going to have five bidders that meet the minimum requirement and put a full proposal. and if we spend one afternoon on a special meeting and listen to three to five proposals and we had

the scoring in front of us, everyone sees it, and we pick the best un. >> yeah, but that's where we are -- i mean, that's why i wanted everyone to see who responded, let the panel do their work and come back to us with a recommendation. the staff, legal and everyone is not recommending that we have two or three but we just have one recommendation. >> yeah. >> you said the top two three come back to us right? >> i think the difference is commissioner makras is suggesting the commission is going to make the final choice versus the panel and that's what i think he is suggesting. >> i heard differently. i guess what i would recommend, because i think the panel should make the decision for us and i understand

-- i think it would be -- if everyone who meets the minimum qualifications can come present to us for 15 minutes but it's done after the scoring and the oral interviews are done. so that we hear it, gets presented. and there's no threat of undue influence from the press or public comments. >> so we see it but we don't have the recommendation yet. i'm not sure what the value is of that at that point. >> well, the presentation to the commission has no value to the panel. it's only for the commission to be able to see whom is proposing what. then the panel does their work -- well, either way. the panel does their work first, and then they present to us and then we get the recommendation. so at least we are aware of why they are

recommending whom they are recommending, and we've seen it. so we can either skip seeing everyone and let the panel duoto work and come with their -- go to work and come with their recommendations and we can put a commission review in there somewhere. so those are the two choices. where we review it. if we review it up front, you have the concern, the public comment will affect the panel. if we do it afterwards, you are saying there's no purpose that we see it, that we know why the panel is making the recommendation that they are making. >> well, one of these -- that they influence our ultimate decision on approving the final recommendation. that would be the gain of seeing them all. >> but that's second-guessing the panel. >> it's just building additional confidence in the panel's recommendation. i mean

the panel is your adviser. so we are empowering the panel to give you good advice. ultimately the commission makes the decision to move forward with the highest scorer, and the panel process or to have us start again. so you are ultimately the decision maker and you are empowering a panel with expertise and community representation to do the scoring for you because it's a complicated project. so seeing the various respondents may give you additional confidence in the panel's work. >> i would like to get some clarity on whether we can or we cannot as the city attorney said something about a recommended way. does the commission have the right to have the top two be brought to us for the

final decision? is that an option? or are we precluded by law? >> we are not precluded by law. >> you are not precluded. >> but i don't want it to be persuasion. let's get the direct answer. okay. could we have three come before us if we wanted to? pass or fail. they get a certain score and the top three come to us? >> yes. >> legally, we can have all of them come before us. >> yeah. >> my concern was less about the scoring and sort of -- we will see all the scores of everyone before we make a decision. and we could say we understand that group a scored the best but we think group b is who we should do business with and we could reject that and work with group b.

>> that was not the process we recommended here. under the process we recommended here, if the panel says it's group a and you all say we don't think it's group a we like group b your remedy would be to send us back again, because we are mirroring this after the best practices of the airport and mirroring city contracting rules which says highest score is who you do business with. so here we specifically said it's the highest score that you would either vote up or vote down essentially. >> and the whole rfp process would happen again? >> yes. but we would have to look at why it didn't work the first time. you know, was it did we weight financial too much and not this other criteria or is there something we missed so we could have a transparent process so everyone could compete again. >> here's what i believe is in our best interest to look at more than the top

go-getter. at the end of the day, you are going to have two primary competing businesses. one will tip to money more, and the other may tip to maritime more. i would like us to be able to argue which one we prefer to be the winner. and we have a policy that says if we want more maritime, we have a policy that says the economics don't have to be the same if we have maritime use. so i would like that option to be provided. >> i would argue that that's a priority of maritime versus financial should be built into the guidelines of the rfp. it should be in the up-front guidelines. and i think this rfp in terms of including the values of the community, et cetera, is much more comprehensive than we've done in the past, because we've taken that in consideration obviously, through the waterfront land use plan and all the discussion we've

had with the committee so we are trying to be very balanced with it. but i think the guidelines of where we decide if it's maritime or financial feasibility, i think we've left it open in term it is of the uses so i don't think we've tried to preclude one or the other. but i don't think it has to be argued at the end of the process. it has to be included in the front end and the panel will evaluate if there's nuance or gray area, which there will be, to decide which is the best way for the port to consider. and they should show us the nuance and gray areas but we will look at that. but i don't think we're going to have a big philosophical discussion of maritime versus other but it will be nuances. >> i would hope that. but when i look at the criteria i don't see anything that ponies to maritime. -- points to maritime. so all evaluation criteria will get points. the reality is they may impute it. but

it is not a requirement from the pointing perspective. >> on page 12 of the staff report, we outline the scoring criteria with more detail than we saw on the slides. and if you look at 1b and 1e under quality of design development submittal, 1b talks about performance trust objectives which includes maritime and 1e calls out this balance that commissioner makras is pointing out. i agree it doesn't talk about how they are weighted but maritime is called out. >> so how many people are going to be on the panel. >> at least four. and it's in the waterfront plan or include -- just a moment. >> i saw that. but is four a good

number? don't you usually need an odd number? >> well there's scoring so i mean if there was a tie i guess having a fifth would be good. and we left it open. but at a minimum it has development expert, port advisory member and person representing city or regional interest. we thought if there was an additional need, we could add another expertise if needed. >> when is that decision going to be made? who is going to be included on the panel? >> we would -- in our schedule we were going to begin to put names out there internally, have the rfps out on the street and have a final panel. >> when are you going to let the commission know? any involvement in who is on the panel. >> we could do that. we could recommend a

panel. i could send you -- so in terms of forming a panel, there's the issue of expertise but also the time commitment. so sometimes it's hard to find panelists and especially the quality and caliber of panelists we want here. so what i could do is write you a memo of who we are planning to put on the panel and if there's anyone who wants a hearing or wants to talk about it, you could let me know in new business so we could put that step in. >> can you give me an example of what you mean by city or regional representation. >> as an example there might be a maritime group, a maritime individual that represents all the maritime business that we have or another one might be an open space advocate in another consideration that's not looking at just a neighborhood or district's interest but really looking at regional or city-wide interest. >> okay. and within the timeline, where did

you think we should put the presentation to the commission? >> i'm the wrong person to ask. i actually think -- i'm looking at rona, because does legal have a point of view on this? because you have been more advisory to us on -- do you think it should be before the panel comes together or after the scores are done? the second one. legal thinks it should be after the scores are done and embargoed. that's an interesting word i'm choosing. but can we embargo scores? no. >> i thought -- sorry i thought from my experience contracting with the city that until you inform the respondents, they could be embargoed. the department of public health and mayor's office of housing often have scored decided internally and they

don't notify anyone until like a month that they are embargoed. >> for the city attorney's office, i don't have in front of me but i think the rule is once the scoring is completed, it is subject to sunshine. so once the score is completed the names of the scores and scores themselves are subject to sunshine. i think -- i mean, i think it's a great discussion. i think what you are struggling with is -- yeah. i think what you are struggling with is the need for you to have information and understand what the panel is doing and the need to let the panel be in this very controlled setting so they can make sure that everyone is treated fairly. and when you have a presentation here, you know, there's really not necessarily fairness. so somebody could take for five minutes, somebody else maybe could talk for six minutes. so when you want the panel to be in a very controlled environment and the public forum is not a controlled environment. so those are the two things that

the staff is struggling to present you with options to meet your needs with those two competing objectives. >> could we say in the rfp that the commission will hear presentations on all proposals after the scoring however you want to word that but make it an opt-in. so if i scored only 20 points after that effort and work, i could choose to come yell at the commission or choose not to show up. and the staff do the five-minute presentation on what that project was. so to the point, we are trying to get a level of transparency to show to the community everyone who applied. it would be unlikely for folks who are tightly scored might come use it as a forum as a public comment to argue their case. but you'll have some natural drop offs. >> i think the city attorney's concern

is that the scores should be done before the public the uncontrolled public forum happens. so there's no possibility that the panel could be influenced by what happens. so the hard part of that is figuring out when to get the larger group to come to you. if that's what you want to do. there's really no problem in having the scores done, the presentation made, the scores -- you would see the scores, you have as many people as you want. at that point you could say we want the top five, we want anyone who scored over 90. because then the scores are done. so the hard part is getting the people in the public forum before that happens. >> so it sounds like the suggestion is what we would do is we would -- i'll write a letter to you talking about who the panel would be, we may provide an informational memo just saying who came in the door

and how the process is going then we'll have an info item at the commission where scores will be complete where all the proposers who met the mq have their seven ten minutes to present to you. then right after that, we'll have our info item where we explain what the panel did, the work of the panel and who is preferred or sequence, something like that. >> i didn't think we would be going this far into the rfp. i actually have a different take for the panel. i think the executive director should pick the panelists. i don't think the bidders should know who the panelists are. and i think that they should be one meeting whether it be a phone meeting or not with their instructions and it be limited to one meeting where everyone

does a meeting, so everyone as a rater has the same rules and there's no influence on them. i can tell you why. when the names are out there the private world is going to figure out who those panelists are. they will work very hard to payload their presentation to that person and try to get under their thinks to get the most favorable response just tailored to panelists. and i think that we should have the project tailored to the group as a whole. and that is a better way to get leverage. >> i think the oral interview should be in person. i don't think the phone is acceptable. i think you need to see body language. >> i'm saying for the panelists. i'm only talking about the panelists. five or six. >> can we. >> i'm okay with it being face-to-face. >> can the panel do their work, come

to us with the informational presentation where everybody gives their presentation and then the panel gives their recommendations and that's the informational presentation? can that happen? >> i think that could happen. it may be staff making the presentation just to summarize all the panelists comments. >> that's fine. that's fine. that's fine. >> no, no, no. >> so i think maybe what i'm hearing is that -- do you want to go or do you want me to? >> i wanted to make sure mike understood the proposal. that's what i wanted to start with. >> what i wasn't clear with was whether you were thinking that would happen in one meeting or two. >> one. >> one. >> one informational meeting. >> so agenda item 1 is. >> presentation. >> presentation from all proposers. >> yes. >> item number 2 is. >> comes up, public comment happens

end of item. >> staff panel recommendations. >> then we get up, we summarize the scores. >> but then you can't have any written material. >> so by the time we have the informational hearing where everyone presents if the scoring is done, under sunshine, there's public record, so everybody is going to be walking in the room knowing the scores. that's what i heard the attorney saying to us. so we are saying look, we want to hear from all of you if you want to talk to us, because we are curious what your proposals are. we haven't voted on who you can enter into your negotiations with, we can't issue an award but the scores are public. and i'm actually supportive if we have one long meeting where this is the focus of what we do. and we might have some people really upset with their scores. and that's fine because it's part of being transparent,

we can hear that and understand that. informational. >> it just seems like we have the recommendation which is actually now public because the staff report is public already. >> that's right. >> right? but the scores have always been public in any presentation when we tell in the staff report, it's always public. so then they present. so it's a little flakey. why am i coming to present? no. they are coming to present before the staff report on the panelists recommendations. >> they have options to present. >> that's part of the proposal is to include a summary because we don't want to put someone's proposal in our own words so we have that part of it where we are asking for a short summary executive summary. so if a

respondents aren't opting to present, staff can summarize those who did not come and share with the commission their proposal. >> the city attorney, it's not about our staff report. the minute that panel scores everything and hands them to the staff there technically can be sunshine to anyone who submitted them, even if there's a delay to our meeting. >> unless you are inside an appeal period. >> right. so that's why they are immediately public like when the work is done. so i guess that's what i understood the city attorney to say. our meeting could be three weeks later and people will still know their scores. >> so i think what we are describing is certainly workable from our perspective. i think commissioner gilman has the point of between friday and tuesday everyone will

have a list of those scores. if the commission is comfortable with that, i don't know that i see a weakness. it's sort of the flipside of not seeing the scores but seeing like if you are going to have everything in front of you and you are going to have the public in front of you as well. so if that concentration of information makes sense to you, i think i don't see a problem with it. it allows us to compress that period, which is a good thing. we'll ask for the executive summary, and that will form the basis of that staff report. we'll directly cut and paste. so we are not putting words in their mouth. and if they don't show up, we'll be able to walk through that executive summary. and i think the tenor of the presentations is going to be very pointed in terms of -- those guys aren't as good as me. but i think that feels where. >> but they'll want to show up and

present because we still have the option of rejecting the recommendation. >> exactly. we have other rfps. >> and they may want to set up themselves for the next set of pier projects. so i think this amended proposal works quite well. >> so just to highlight a question. so there's no action that day. >> correct. >> just information. everything is information. >> with an action item on the recommendation. >> right. >> and i assume we are going to then follow this framework for the next two rfps. 30-32 and when we do the northern fingerling piers. i feel like if this is a disaster -- [laughter] . >> i think we should reserve judgment until we go through this process first and then decide if this is ongoing. because it is a change from the past. and let's not commit to everything at once. >> so i would suggest we are going to come in

and propose this process for 30-32 because we are coming in two weeks. we won't have seen the success but we have said we want to hold back on the northern historic piers so the non-winning proposers can go there but that seems like a natural time to figure out. >> we will be using for 30-32 and 33. >> we will be proposing that so we can start here in three weeks. >> any other comments. >> all in favor with amendment. >> with amendment. >> resolution 19-43 has been approved with amendment. >> to remind everyone to please silence your electronic devices. item 10a request

approval of issuance of port of san francisco series 2020 refunding bond in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $27 million with an interest rate not to exceed 6 percent per annum to refund the remaining outstanding balance on the port commission's 2010 revenue bonds to form a supplement to indenture of trust between the port and a trustee three the sale of the 2020 bond negotiated sale pursuant to a purchase contract, four the form of a bond purchase contract, five, the preliminary form of the official statement relating to the bonds and the distribution of the statement. six the form of the continuing disclosure certificate

of the port and execution of the contract. and seven the form of the escrow agreements. this is resolution number 19-42. >> thank you. katie before you start i know we had an informational presentation on this, and i know that everybody fully supported it. so can you just go over the highlights of what has to be presented today. >> brandon. i appreciate this so much. yeah. so the highlights are staff is here to ask the commission to approve a revenue bond refunding of nearly $30 million and outstanding 2010 bonds. we are requesting authority to issue up to $27 million in new bonds. we expect to only use -- or to issue about $23.5 million in new bonds. and we are

estimating that the port will realize approximately $13 million in savings from this refunding with the net value of $7.9 million. the maturity base of these bonds would remain the same. the key thing that i just want to tell the commission this afternoon is that we are asking for you to approve a resolution authorizing the sale of 2020 bonds in an amount not to exceed $27 million. we are asking the commission to approve a third supplement to be indenture of trust, a bond purchase agreement a preliminary official statement continuing disclosure certificate and escrow agreements one for each of the series of the 2010 bonds that are being refunded. if you approve this item today we will be introducing

legislation at the board of supervisors next tuesday. and we hope to have the transaction concluded and all of the outstanding bonds repaid by march 1 of 2020. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you so much. can i have a motion? >> i will move the item. >> i second. >> is there any public comment on this item? any questions or comments? all in favor? resolution 19-42 has been approved >> thank you so much. >> item 13, new business. >> is there any new business? is there any public comment on new business? >> item 14, adjournment. >> can i have a motion to adjourn? >> i make the motion to adjourn. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

it. >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their shop & dine in the 49 within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services in the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so we're will you shop & dine in the 49 chinatown has to be one the best

unique shopping areas in san francisco that is color fulfill and safe each vegetation and seafood and find everything in chinatown the walk shop in chinatown welcome to jason dessert i'm the fifth generation of candy in san francisco still that serves 2000 district in the chinatown in the past it was the tradition and my family was the royal chef in the pot pals that's why we learned this stuff and moved from here to have dragon candy i want people to know that is art we will explain a walk and they can't walk in and out it is

different techniques from stir frying to smoking to steaming and they do show of. >> beer a royalty for the age berry up to now not people know that especially the toughest they think this is - i really appreciate they love this art. >> from the cantonese to the hypomania and we have hot pots we have all of the cuisines of china in our chinatown you don't have to go far. >> small business is important to our neighborhood because if we really make a lot of people lives better more people get a job here not just a big firm. >> you don't have to go anywhere else we have pocketed of great neighborhoods haul have all have their own uniqueness.

>> san francisco has to all >> good morning, everyone. what an exciting day in the city of san francisco right here on jefferson street. i want to thank you all for coming out like they say. it takes a village to really come up with a great project and this project is a great project that involved many people from many city departments, many years ago. it started with the fisherman's worth plan and there were many agencies that were involved. i see john brown from the planning department is here. harlan kelly from p.u.c., our friends from the port are here.

the san francisco transportation authority is over there, and many agencies, of course,, public works. they are part of this project. and when this project first started, it was a five block project and we could only find funding to do the first part in the first part was from hyde to jones. but we also had to do it in quick time, in under six months we were able to build the only -- the first part of jefferson street before the america's cup and i can tell you that project has been a fantastic project. so this phase two is also going to be done in record time, under a year, starting today after this groundbreaking. with that said, i would like to introduce someone that has been a champion for pedestrian safety implementing vision zero and really making our safety the beautiful city that it is, i'm making sure that

we'll work together. let's welcome our mayor london buried. [cheers and applause] -- london buried. >> thank you to all the community members who are here today to celebrate phase two of four phases of really changing the future and the landscape of fisherman's worth in this area, which is not only visited by people from all around the world , there's actually an incredible community of merchants, of people who live here and who walk these streets every single day. we want to make sure that it is safe it is walkable, it is enjoyable and people have incredible experiences when they come to visit san francisco. today we ordered the sun to shine so that people can happen even better experience. this project is an example of how when city departments come together for a common goal, with community members and the

fisherman's worth community business district in the san francisco chamber, thank you rodney for being here today that we can make incredible things happen. i'm excited that public works and the port and the planning department and so many of our agencies have made this a priority. we know that money generated from tourism actually helps to support so many incredible things that we do in san francisco so we want the experiences to be that much better. and looking at how we are taking a street that used to be a one-way, turning into a two away widening the sidewalks making it more clean and more green, and at the same time thank you to harlan kelly, the director of p.u.c. for digging into the ground, and we are taking around the fiber-optic cables that all the things that we need to do to make sure that the pipes and infrastructure is working so that we don't have to go back into the ground is absolutely how we should be

working on public projects like this. i'm excited. it took a lot of money yes from a lot of different resources, and i want to say a special thank you to david chiu for his work in providing resources working along with supervisor aaron peskin and supervising estate resources to make this project a reality. it does take a village. it does take a lot of money and here we are at the end of what is phase two to make something incredible happening for this particular neighborhood. thank you do all the folks involved and i'm excited that mohammed has promised to do this in record time and within budget we will be watching very closely because that is what i care about the most. i know that one of the most fiscally conservative persons on the board of supervisors cares about that as well. ladies and gentlemen, your supervisor, aaron peskin. [applause]

>> thank you. good things come to people who are patient. as down from the port to knows, this goes back to 2003 when the community gathered with the port and started a community plan. some years later the planning department stepped in even before the days of john ram and graham and that led to phase i. let's be real there was a little concern. rodney will remember, back in the days when he had the wax museum widening of the sidewalks was going to inhibit vehicular transportation here even though we all knew it was going to actually make fisherman 's worth -- wharf keep up. years ago they brought the f. line in here and that was a boom

to fisherman's wharf and it is beloved around san francisco and around the world. after that, we expanded the sidewalks. fisherman's worth is the goose that lays the golden egg for san francisco. year in and year out. it is high time that san francisco city government reinvest so that fisherman's wharf will continue to be the envy of the world. $600 million in retail sales $250 million related to hotels millions and millions, 16 million people come here every year. thirty-nine is the number one tourist attraction in the city and county of san francisco. investing $16 million of city and state funds makes perfect sense for this fiscally prudent supervisor including and i am wearing now my hat as chair of the san francisco county transportation authority, not only $1.2 million of your half

cent sales tax but each of the members of that body get $200,000 to invest. i put my $200,000 into this project. it is just a little bit but it helped make it go. congratulations to all the departments and particularly the community that made this happen. thank you so much. [applause] next from the port of san francisco, we are on port property until you get in the middle of that street, then you're on mohammed's property, but we are on the lands of the port of san francisco. it's executive director, elaine forbes. [applause]. >> thank you so much supervisor peskin. thank you to mayor breed for prioritizing safety and economic development and helping this neighborhood thrive. you have heard from the other speakers about this area being the goose that lays the golden egg, which is completely true. 85% of visitors to san francisco

come here and they come back again because it is such a wonderful experience that we have to continue to invest in, but i want to talk for a second about the community that is here we have 500 businesses. many small businesses can eat many multigenerational businesses that make this place thrive. we have an amazing fisherman's wharf community. we have the fisherman and women who are the reason for this place you have been fishing and making their life off the bay for generations and fisherman's wharf is about the fishing community and about the small communities -- small businesses in the community. that is why it is a special place to come and visit. i want to acknowledge all the community did to get to this place today, to have our groundbreaking. it is a real celebration to all of you. thank you for making fisherman's wharf such an amazing experience for all the people local and visiting that come and again -- that come again and again. i want to acknowledge my commissioner who is here today. now i'd like to turn it over to

randall scott. he is the c.e.o. of the fisherman's wharf c.b.d. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you to all of you. i came here last december to fisherman's wharf and fell in love with it all over again. i want to encourage each and everyone of you to come down and visit and see what is going on. the pedestrian developments of jefferson street, wider sidewalks, easier to walk through, all around the world people have been doing this to their cities and the foot traffic and the visitation that comes down with that and the boost of businesses is absolutely fantastic. i can't wait for this to finish. thank you very much for only promising for one year. as mentioned we are the tourist

heart of the city. people come down here, they have fun, they go back to their homes , they bring back more people. i just want to say, you know, to the city, thank you for reinvesting and fisherman's wharf. we promised to take very good care of it and we look forward to those people walking down the street. to those of you in the bay area, i would highly encourage you to come down and visit. this place has something for everyone. we have a treasure hunt do you can go from bar to bar attraction to attraction and enjoy an entire full day down here. again, thank you to the city and county of san francisco, thank you all for coming. [applause] >> all right. in fact, this very spot that we are standing will become a brand-new plaza. as everyone knows, it is a parking lot now but we will redo it and it will have nice paving patterns. those architects at public works

, they have had fun with it everybody is okay with it. okay. let's go and break ground. we have some shovels. let's get busy here. >> all right, come on in. ready? squeeze in. squeeze, we don't have to touch. all right. are you guys ready? five four, three two, one. there we go. [cheering]. >> all right. >> all right. thank you. >> what are you going to use it for? [laughter]

>> three, two, one. [applause.] >> congratulations everybody. thank you. >> so the project was driven by the need to improve conditions for people biking and walking from beach street to mcallister. between 2010 and 2015 there were 290 traffic crashes including two deaths, 110 bike collisions and 78ted 78 pedestrian collisions. the construction was a little

over two years. it including pedestrian crossing, better bike facilities, new street trees, we repaved the entire corridor. fern alley has decorative street plants and new palm streets. cbd helped maintain the alleys and they are planning farmers markets and pop ups and bands. >> the goal was to build on the economic vibran vibrancy of polk street and to provide a safe street for the whole.

>> good morning, and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority for our meeting today, tuesday, october 22, 2019. our clerk is mr. quintanilla. could you call the roll. [ roll call ]